Golf Course Foes Plan to Appeal Council Approval : Development: Opponents warn of damage to the habitat of a rare bird if the project on the coastal bluffs of Rancho Palos Verdes is built. The City Council voted 5-0 to give the go-ahead.

Opponents of a controversial $35-million residential development and golf course planned for the coastal bluffs of Rancho Palos Verdes say they will immediately challenge this week’s City Council vote giving final approval to the project.

“We are going to appeal, definitely,” said Andrew H. Sargent, spokesman for the Coastal Conservation Coalition, which includes several Palos Verdes Peninsula organizations concerned about open space and wildlife issues.

The coalition contends that the 258-acre project will destroy the coastal sage scrub habitat of a rare songbird, the California gnatcatcher.

Developers Barry Hon and Ken Zuckerman strongly defend the project, saying no harm will come to the environment or the nesting gnatcatchers. The council agreed, approving the project’s environmental impact report in a 5-0 vote Monday that gave the green light to the development.

“We are very pleased we’ve made it through the City Council process, and we’re hoping to get through the appeals by July and move on to final project design,” said Michael Mohler, manager of the Hon-Zuckerman project.

The project is slated to occupy one of the few large open coastal bluff areas left in California. Hon, an Orange County developer, and Zuckerman, a Palos Verdes builder, want to build an 18-hole world-class golf course and subdivide 83 lots for high-priced homes.

According to the environmental impact report, there are four nesting pairs of gnatcatchers and perhaps twice as many cactus wrens within the development area. Both species may soon be classified as endangered, experts say.

Opponents will base their appeal on information contained in two governmental reports critical of the project, Sargent said. One was by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expert, the other by a California Coastal Commission staff planner.

After reviewing project plans, a federal fish and wildlife biologist warned city officials that the proposed golf course could eliminate three gnatcatcher nests. The developers contend that “just the opposite is true,” saying they actually will expand nesting habitat, not destroy it.

The Coastal Commission planner wrote the developers an unusual letter, warning them that the project design failed to adequately protect the environment, wildlife and public access to the coast. More open space, more public access roads and more trails are needed, the staffer wrote.

These documents were only advisory, officials said, and neither agency has a legal standing to challenge the project at this point. However, an appeal to the Coastal Commission will trigger a project review by that agency to see if the development conforms to state and local coastal planning regulations.

Sargent said the proposed project’s failures are highlighted in these reports and give the coalition more than enough facts to sustain their appeal.

“We have two options. We can go directly to court because the plans don’t comply with (the California Environmental Quality Act) or we can go to the Coastal Commission because the plans fail to meet the city’s (state-approved) coastal plan,” he said.

Mohler strongly defended the project’s environmental sensitivity and said the plan will provide more public access to the coastal bluffs than required by state or local regulations.

In approving the project, the council rejected a proposal to create discounted green fees and a special tee-off reservation system for local residents. Such a system would conflict with state Coastal Commission regulations forbidding preferential access for any individual or group of people, city officials said.

If the project survives appeals, Mohler said work could begin this summer and the development would be completed sometime in the fall of 1993.